My employer has just give me this notice" As the government has increased annual holiday entitlement for full time from 22 days to 24 days and pro rata for part time employees, this is to give employee extra days to cover bank holidays. Therefore the extra shift rate paid for bank holidays is no longer payable from 6th April 2008" and this circular was passed on 18th april 2008.
any posibility of challenging this? Suggestions and advice needed please.
=============
You're guaranteed 24 days of holiday entitlement? :eek: That's more than most people in this world receive, so I wouldn't fret too much about the memo. It's all a matter of perspective.

Having said that, what does your employment contract say? That's what counts.
=============
If the extra payments are stated in the contract or it has been a normal thing for a certain period then the employer cannot unilaterally change this.
=============
If the extra payments are stated in the contract or it has been a normal thing for a certain period then the employer cannot unilaterally change this.
It has been going on for a while .It was not stated in the contract that one will get double pay during bank holiday, the nature of the job is that we work 365 days a year so if one work during bank holiday I think one should be entitled to the bonus
=============
Everyone is now entitled to 24 paid days holiday a year. Lots of employees don't realise this because if they were already on 20 days plus bank holidays then they are better off anyway and employers have been able to ignore the rule. It is also soon to go up to 26 days including bank holidays I think. I believe - although correct me if I'm wrong anyone - that the idea behind this new law is that many people were not being paid for having bank holidays off and the government is trying to even things out a bit. As there is an average of 6 bank holidays a year the entitlement will rise to 26 to equal the commonly used 20 days plus bank holidays.

The important thing to note here is that you employer has said your new holiday entitlement includes bank holidays. So how many paid days off did you get last year? 20? with the 8 bank holidays there were? so has he reduced your annual allowance and if so there may be something you can do about this. Also you are talking about getting extra pay to work on a public holiday. Regardless of the new law public holidays are still public holidays. If you won't get extra money for working them and they are included in your holiday entitlement I would suggest you put in a days holiday for each one and stay at home.

I thought that a contract could be implied as well as written and that if something is done on a regular basis (such as double pay for bank holidays) then it is an implied part of the contract and therefore forms part of the overall contract. To change the terms of the contract would surely require discussion and agreement from both parties? It really would be useful to speak to a professional about this.
=============
It is also soon to go up to 26 days including bank holidays I think.
This is just plain ridiculous. The minimum wage is already almost double the minimum wage in the US and many times more the minimum in other countries. There are about 220 workdays in a year, right, so 26 days of holiday entitlement (I hate that word!) effectively increases the minimum wage by 12%. Then there's sick pay and maternity leave - good things, but overhead to take into account. I'm guessing the real minimum wage, when you take these things into account is perilously high.

Does the government have no inkling of what it's doing to small business? A few more years of this and not only manufacturing work will be outsourced overseas but all the services work we take pride in today. It's going to ruin the business environment.
=============
I totally agree! Thats one of the reasons behind starting my own business as I thought more companies would be open to the idea of Pay as You Go support rather than employing.

The minimum wage really annoys me. In a previous post there was an admin girl on not much more than the minimum wage but with loads of responsibility yet the cleaner, with no stress or responsibility was on only about 10pence less. The admin girl used to joke that she wished she hadn't bothered with all the NVQ's etc she had taken as she could have just been a cleaner and had an easier time! I think the wage should reflect the ability and position of the person concerned. I'm also not convinced that the companies that were paying a pittance in sweatshops and the like will have changed their ways and started paying people the minimum wage so I'm not sure who it is helping.:|
=============
Sorry, Dewalex, to take your post a little off topic. I hope you're able to resolve your issue.
=============
Well this would be the first I have heard of holidays going up to 26 days ;)
The current statutory minimum is 24 days (4.8 weeks) inclusive, rising to 28 (5.6 weeks) in April 09, most Companies then will be on a par.
To the OP, if your employer has paid double for bank holidays in the past, then he has more than likely set a precedent that he may well come to regret should he attempt to take this away without consultation and agreement, the more employees that this applies to then the more potential damage the employer is facing if he tries to make you have it. There may be things that have been done by the employer that has not been disclosed in respect to the payments, but on the face of what you have posted it would seem the employer is on thin ice here.
You should be looking at any insurances you may have (household etc) to see if legal advice is included or alternatively speak with ACAS on 08457 474747
=============
But think about this from an employer's perspective. Suddenly, the employer is expected to give all employees another four days off - that's effectively a pay raise of over 2%. Why shouldn't companies be allowed to cut employee salaries by the same amount to keep costs unchanged? Isn't that fair? They had a contract with employees for a certain rate per productive hour. Since the government dictated more days off, companies should be allowed to adjust salaries so that overall salary costs, relative to productive hours, remain unchanged. And if the employees don't like it, then vote for a different government.

I find this whole topic so depressing. There should be no minimum wage, and there should be no minimum holiday entitlement. If employees don't like a company, go work for another one. If another company won't take them on, maybe they don't have the skills needed to get a job - in which case, do something about it. And this is where the government comes in: Provide training for the entire workforce to help those who cannot command higher wages. Of course there should be provisions to help the disabled and to ensure no discrimination, but these are exceptions to a more general rule. That general rule should be for the government to stay out of it and let the market dictate what a person is worth.
=============
Tried to bite my tongue on this one but 5.6 weeks - so for a relatively small employer they will have to employ an extra member of staff for every 10 employees, just to cover holiday entitlement.

'bout time this nanny state took a long hike to never never land, where they can all live happily on little fluffy clouds, eating strawberry ice-cream and letting big brother sort everything out, cos after all he knows best.

Let the unions and this government continue, give everyone more and more 'minimum pay', more holiday and then watch them cry wondering where all the jobs have gone.

I used to work in the health service and when I took my 6 weeks holiday, yes that's right 6 weeks the waiting lists just grew (and of course that just doesn't matter, so what if a few more people die cos they didn't get the care they need at the right time) - the government hasn't a clue either about the effects on small businesses - a shop doesn't have the option to close 1 day in every 10 just to give employee's their 'entitlement' to paid holiday.
=============
And every year or two a politician or union official suggests we ought to have another bank holiday for some, in my view, spurious reason.

No-one in government ever calculates how much this will cost business, especially small businesses. But then I've never met a politician who has the slightest understanding of small business.
=============
What has created immense confusion - on both sides of the fence - is that the minimum holiday entitlements laid down by the Working Time Directive actually include Bank Holidays, despite a whole generation of employers and employees being used to thinking of holiday entitlement as so many days plus Bank Holidays.

When this first came in, in 1998(?), increasing holiday to 20 days, many employers misinterpreted this and gave 20 days plus the 8 Bank Holidays, thus reinforcing the misunderstanding. That we are debating this now is firm evidence of that.
=============
Hi all,

Ok - I did kinda (once) know the answer to this question, so ill try to reply but please forgive me if i get any areas a bit wrong, and im sure someone will correct me......

The concept behind increasing the holidays to 28 days (staged over a two year into period) was to bring shift workers and what have you into line with the general workforce.

A lot of people had the basic 20 days (or more) plus did not work BH as their employer was shut - so they would be getting, in effect, 28 days a year (or so) off.

Some shift workers are employed 24/7, and dont get BH off - so they have been missing out on the extra holiday.

So under the new system, we all get 28 days - keeping in mind that employers can count the BH (if you get them off) as holioday. So many people (and therefore business) are not effected by this new rule - they take their usual 20 days plus BH off.

Those really effected are workers who are expected to work BH. The employer can either now give them the BH off, or raise the holiday to 28 days.

Seems pretty fair so far.

Now, to pay. There is no entitlement (per se) to extra pay for working BH. So an employer may say, yes we will give you 28 days off, but we are no longer paying double (or whatever) on a BH.

This is down to individual business negotiations. I know a lot of comanies however, that have just gone with giving their shift workers the extra days holiday (to keep within the law) and still paying extra on BH (otherwise no one would work it!)

I dont see any vast increase to costs here - esp not to the general worker that works 'normal' business hours and already takes BH off.

Am I missing something?

All the best

Steve
=============
That is just it Steve a lot of workers would not have had the extra days for bank holidays. Staff in some industries are required to work bank holidays instead of spending it with families etc and of course the new law has not helped them, most of these employees are usually the lowest paid workers and feel they have had a double blow with the 10% bandwidth being removed.
=============
That is just it Steve a lot of workers would not have had the extra days for bank holidays. Staff in some industries are required to work bank holidays instead of spending it with families etc and of course the new law has not helped them, most of these employees are usually the lowest paid workers and feel they have had a double blow with the 10% bandwidth being removed.
The tail is always used to wag the dog. The percentage of workers who fall into this category must be very small. If it's really a concern, why not institute a rule that, if staff miss a bank holiday, they can take a day off in lieu? What's the big deal? Why cripple small business with ever-increasing 'entitlements'?

With tongue in cheek, I suggest the government impose Rule #5 from the Alcatraz Prison Rules and Regulations: "You are entitled to food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention. Anything else you get is a privilege." Seriously, though, wages and holidays should be negotiated between employer and employee when a job is filled. It should have nothing to do with government. If we stripped away all these entitlement laws, we'd create millions of new jobs.
=============
Hi,

As I said, Im poss missing something here, but...

Surely, if your running a (lets say) 9-5, mon to fri, days off for BH type operation, then this new law does not really effect you in anyway - unless you were giving your staff 12 days holiday and counting the 8 BH towards the (old) 20 minimum.

I dont know of many companies that were doing that though - and if they were, well hurray for the new laws!

Also, to address...

"Staff in some industries are required to work bank holidays instead of spending it with families etc and of course the new law has not helped them"

Surely the law has helped them - yes they still work BH, but now (at the moment) they get an extra 4 days a year at home with the family and next year, theyll get an extra 8!

So shift workers will get the same amount of time at home with the family as everyone else - which was not the case in the past!

Of course - we are talking minimums here - and some (perhaps most, I dont know) companies give more than that etc etc

Of course - Im talking about this new legislation from the point of view of the worker, and realise some of the other posts here are from the employers standpoint - so that may explain the differences in thought etc.

I think its superb - and im also a big fan of the minimum wage!

Just makes me wonder how things might be if we had a socialist government in power.

All the best

Steve
=============
they get an extra 4 days a year at home with the family and next year, theyll get an extra 8!
Multiply that by 20, for example, and a small company is being forced to waste 160 staff-days of productive time because of government dictate. Where are they supposed to find that money? I don't understand why you see this as a good thing. :|

And a minimum wage just forces companies to pay someone more than they are worth. If the government insists on spending your hard-earned money (that they steal in the form of taxes) on schemes like this, let them pay a supplementary benefit or something to make up the difference instead of forcing companies to pay ridiculously high wages or be forced to outsource work overseas.

You're right: We're looking at this from different perspectives.
=============
And a minimum wage just forces companies to pay someone more than they are worth.
What an utterly contemptible statement :mad:
=============
What an utterly contemptible statement :mad:
Why?

Let's assume there is no minimum wage. You and I are well-educated, have learned valuable skills, and companies want us. We can command a good salary. If one company won't pay us what we deserve, then another will. We earn what we are worth.

Then let's say that someone who doesn't have qualifications and has not learned any skill looks for a job. What's their value to a company? If they're prepared to do work others don't want to do, they may still command a good wage; otherwise, their value is limited and a company will pay a smaller amount. Still, if they want to put food on the table, they should work.

To help people who have no skills or qualifications, the government can offer free training. Those willing to work hard and improve themselves can increase their value by taking advantage of these training schemes. In other words, we'd be doing everything possible to allow fellow citizens to improve themselves and hence earn a higher wage.

In this scenario, we see the market at work. Employees have all the power because they can command a salary commensurate with their worth. Companies, on the other hand, thrive because they pay for what they get, not an amount regulated by government. They will treat employees well because they want to retain them. If they don't, a competitor company will lure their employees with the promise of more respect and better working conditions.

Now, what does a minimum wage do? It distorts the picture. As I mentioned before, it forces companies to pay some people more than they are worth. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but it's an economic fact. If the minimum wage wasn't there, companies wouldn't pay as much because the employee isn't worth it. In addition, what company would want to lure away workers not worth their wage? None - so that means the current employer won't focus on a great working environment and low-wage workers will be treated poorly. So, with a minimum wage, everyone suffers.

Of course, a compassionate society should protect those in need - and this can be done by offering free skills training and by forcing companies not to discriminate against those who are older or physically challenged or sick or otherwise disadvantaged through no fault of their own. What the government should not do, though, is subsidise the lazy or force companies to pay more than a person is worth. That type of attitude stifles business and is downright unfair to those people who have taken the time to improve themselves and are prepared to work hard.

And the exact same argument holds for holiday allowances.

I hope I've explained more clearly what I meant by my earlier statement, and I'm sorry that you found it contemptible. It wasn't meant that way at all.
=============
Hello,

Im thinking as Ive rabbited on a bit in this post, I should at least attempt to answer the OP!

Ok....

The thing to keep in mind is that unless you work in the banking sector (where its written into such and such a law) there is nothing special in employment law about bank holidays - and an employer does not have to give you the time off or indeed pay extra for you to work it.

But of course, most of the time companies do etc.

So where as someone who was not a shift worker would take a BH off and stay at home on full pay, us shiftworkers often have to work it - but now instead of double pay you will get another day off.

This makes things fairly even across the board.

Ok, I realise that at the moment your are feeling hard done by to loose the extra pay - but you get the day off at a later date in effect, so you too will get your full days pay for staying at home.

Now, I agree you might not want the extra holiday and would prefer the double time instead - but its a case of there will always be a degree of winners and loosers with this!

I also add, as i said before, most shiftworkers I know are getting the extra days and still getting enhanced BH pay, so its win win for them - but i work in the south, and the workforce can easily vote with its feet if not happy!

Im sorry if thats not the case for you.

In terms of the legal side of this change they wish to bring in - past action will in effect amount to an agreement, but any contract can be changed subject to business conditions. In this case, you have been given a couple of months notice of the proposed change, so I dont think they will be found guilty of any wrong doing (im not a lawyer though).

So in summary - when all this new legislation is fully introduced (about this time next year I think) you (at your company) will be getting 28 days paid leave a year, but no enhanced pay for working bank holidays.

Im sure this will suit some, and not others!

I sympathise if you would rather have kept the double time of course.

All the best

Steve
=============
Steve, a well-reasoned argument, and I agree with you. My gripe is with the government setting a minimum in the first place. What you're saying is that everyone should be treated fairly, with which I fully agree. :)
=============
I think the problem is that there is an imbalance in the employment legislation at present that weighs too heavily on the small employer.

You take on an employee to generate income and undertake work that needs doing. As an employer, as has been said, you do not have the option to suspend your business for 28 days per year for holiday. Which means effectively for those 28 days you incurr double wage cost. Paying someone on holiday, and someone else to do the work. Because you can't simply not do the work.

The employees don't see this side, and it's not lobbied around by politicians and companies marketing out of extra bank holidays.

The minimum wage is a very good thing. But again the costs to the employer are more than the minimum wage, and again these costs are "glossed over".

Costs of employing someone at the moment include minimum wage, national insurance, costs of employers insurance, cost of insurance against tribunals etc, cost of maintaining and updating contracts and policies, costs of complying with ever changing legislation, pensions, costs of complying with DDA (just in case anyone with a disability ever considers applying for a job with you), training (with again the double cost of paying someone else to do the work whilst the employee is on a training course), employee theft, sick days (and again, the double cost of paying sick pay, and someone else to do the work), protective clothing, uniforms, complying with sometimes ludicrous health & safety regulations.

Now add up that lot, and tell me what the true minimum wage is?

And then you put that together with the fact that employee productivity is in most cases pretty low. That employees are spending a lot of their time on the internet, mobile phones, gossiping, coffee machine etc (which you are paying for). And fundamentally, that few employees have much respect for their employer.

All of this adds up to a general "bad taste" for small business employers.
=============
And then you put that together with the fact that employee productivity is in most cases pretty low. That employees are spending a lot of their time on the internet, mobile phones, gossiping, coffee machine etc (which you are paying for). And fundamentally, that few employees have much respect for their employer.

I understand that feeling - it does sometimes seem that an employer should feel privileged that employees do pop in for the odd bit of work in between all the other days off. But I don't agree about respect. Surely as a manager one can command respect? Set an atmosphere where achievement counts?

On Bank Holidays, we seem to be dividing into two classes: those that expect not to work on those days as a "right", and those whose job it is to serve them.
=============
And then you put that together with the fact that employee productivity is in most cases pretty low. That employees are spending a lot of their time on the internet, mobile phones, gossiping, coffee machine etc (which you are paying for). And fundamentally, that few employees have much respect for their employer.
This lies at the root of the problem: a certain antipathy between 'company' and 'employee', but it really doesn't have to be this way. If managers delegate as much as possible, ensure goals are clearly defined and that employees have the skills needed to do the job, if the employee understands how their work fits into the overall picture, and if colleagues take a general interest in the person, work is fun and challenging and something to look forward to each day. We're all in it together, and we actually enjoy working longer hours because of the sense of fulfillment.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never worked in an environment in which productivity was low or where people wasted time or in which there was no respect. I'm guessing that these things come about in part because of the anonymity and bureaucracy that government regulation forces on the workplace. If we get rid of all that, we're now just people and friends working together for everyone's common good - without having to worry about breaking this rule or that rule or insisting on this entitlement or that entitlement. It's very liberating.
=============
And that's the rub....the government has decided that no longer are people capable of 'working together' and figuring stuff out. Instead the government must tell them what they must earn (and as someone else has said of course minimum wage increases the government's tax take so it's 'win, win, win all the way to the bank' for them. The government has also decided that people must take this much holiday or that much. Further increasing the government's tax take when employer's are forced to pay both the holiday pay and the pay of the person who's covering.

As I have mentioned I previously worked in the health service. I have a degree in an area of major shortage within the NHS and could pick and choose where I worked etc etc. I earned (going back a few years) around ?0K per anrum, I had 6 weeks holiday a year plus bank holidays.

And I was miserable and unhappy most of the time because I couldn't do the job effectively because of the system I worked in. I dreaded work and wasted most Sunday afternoons and evenings because I had this intense feeling of gloom about the coming work week ahead. Most of the 'extra' money I earned paid for things to make me 'feel better'.

A few years ago I decided enough was enough, took a career break from the NHS (Oh yes, another perk, I could give notice that I wanted 2 or more years off and while I wasn't of course paid for that time my job, grade and salary were guaranteed on my return). Actually I never went back.

I earn significantly less now, my holidays are significantly less and I'm happy. I don't dread work, in fact work is now so much fun that I barely make a distinction between the two.

On the face of it I had it all...money, holidays etc etc but I did not have something which is far more precious to me - happiness and satisfaction in my work - which after all even on health service hours of 35 a week still accounts for a significant proportion of your life.

The government can never legislate for my situation and I was lucky to have choices but they can seriously forget telling me that I 'must' earn minimum wage, I 'must' take x days holiday, give me happiness any time!

(Lol I wonder when they will try to bring in a 'minimum happiness' rule....oh god....nooooo)
=============